- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:45:14 +0200
- To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- Cc: xml-names-editor@w3.org
* Henry S. Thompson wrote: >Please let us know if you are willing to accept this resolution in the >current instance, pending the outcome of any further higher-level >discussion. The XML 1.0 specification and the Namespaces in XML 1.0 specification in essence share the same structure and since the Second Edition also the same terminology. Conformance of documents is defined through production rules in a formal grammar, and where the formal grammar cannot express requirements, the grammar is amended through Constraints in prose. The terms "valid" and "well-formed" are used for documents meeting certain criteria. The XML 1.0 specification considers a document well-formed if it matches a certain grammar production, meets all the well-formedness constraints, and all referenced parsed entities are well-formed. Namespaces in XML does not phrase the definition of namespace-well-formedness quite like that, but if you read the specification assuming matching the grammar and meeting the namespace constraints gives you a namespace-well-formed document, you will find little difference with the actual definition. Indeed the errata of Namespaces in XML 1.0 Second Edition introduces new namespace constraints to support this reading (items NE14 and NE19) even though the prose already spells the relevant requirements out. The URI syntax requirement is probably the only requirement not expressed in the grammar or a namespace constraint. If "well-formed" means "grammar and constraints" in both specifications then they are easier to understand than if it means "grammar and constraints" for one specification and "grammar and constraints and URI syntax" in the other specification. Your response is not acceptable to me as you are failing to cite reasons why the change should not be made; all you said is that it is not abso- lutely necessary to make it. A proper response would explain for example the difference between this change and analogous changes for NE14 and NE19. I believe the Working Group's decision and response should be reviewed by an independent third party; please mark this issue as such. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 21:45:43 UTC